I never thought I would agree with Melissa Etheridge, but I do.
I think what Jolie did was not only fearful, but stupid. You don’t have healthy, normal body parts removed because of a chance of cancer. If you have a very high chance of developing cancer, you simply get frequently tested. If you actually develop the disease, then you take appropriate action. What Jolie did was bizarre and unhinged - no matter how liberals in the MSM laud it as “brave”.
My sister is a strong Catholic social conservative. I’m not sure how you bring liberal or conservative into this. I think it’s a “Mother Bear” thing.
>> You don’t have healthy, normal body parts removed because of a chance of cancer.
And you don’t have much knowledge of state-of-the-art cancer treatment best practices.
Prophylactic surgery for cancer prevention is not only commonplace, it’s proven effective. That’s how it became a best practice.
Obviously, it”s a personal decision, but I’m inclined to agree with you. I don’t care to go under the knife for any reason unless I absolutely have to. And I’m skeptical about whether identifying a gene or genes would really be such an accurate predictor of whether or not you will get cancer.
Tony Snow was a high risk for cancer... he was frequently tested... and he died of cancer... we don’t always have control no matter the precautions we take...
I disagree. Jolie’s mother died of breast cancer, and while she was waiting for her own genetic test results, her aunt died of breast cancer. Since she has adopted several children, she either doesn’t want to, or can’t carry children herself.
That being said, her breasts are ornamental, and with post mastectomy repair would look much the same. The difference being that she would not have two hand grenades taped to her chest.
Her odds for cancer were 50% for ovarian, and 87% for breast. Now, at least for breast cancer, her odds are down to about 3%.
I don’t think her decision is bizarre at all.
You're saying you'd rather wait until you get diagnosed with cancer, to do anything, instead of doing something to prevent getting it altogether. If you had a 90% chance of getting cancer by not having the surgery, and a less than 20% chance of getting cancer by having the surgery, which option would you choose?
That's very easy to say, but appropriate action when it comes to cancer doesn't always work, does it? Jolie had a high likelihood of developing breast or ovarian cancer. I don't laud her as "brave"; IMO it was a personal decision involving self-preservation more than bravery. But I understand why she did it.